Mini‐Aortic Valve Replacement versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Propensity‐Matched Study

Background . Total sternotomy for aortic valve replacement has been superseded by less invasive approaches such as mini‐sternotomy or transcatheter procedures. There has been an exponential uptake in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in younger and lower risk patients following recent randomized trials. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients with aortic stenosis treated with minimally invasive approaches: mini‐sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (mini‐AVR) and TAVI implantation. Methods . Between January 2015 and December 2021, a total of 1437 TAVI and 176 mini‐AVR patients from 2 tertiary centers fulfilled the criteria and were included in the propensity matching model. Results . A total of 256 TAVIs and 146 mini‐AVR were included in the matched cohort. There was no significant difference in 30‐day mortality in the two groups (TAVI vs. mini‐AVR 2.7% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.935). TAVI confers slightly lower gradients in the follow‐up echo when compared with mini‐AVR (peak gradient 20 ± 8.7 mmHg vs. 24.5 ± 10 mmHg, p < 0.001; mean gradient 10.9 ± 5.6 mmHg vs. 13.2 ± 5.7 mmHg, p < 0.001). On the other hand, mini‐AVR exhibits remarkably lower rates of paravalvular leak (mild leak 8% vs. 41.5%, p < 0.001; moderate leak 2.8% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) and of need for permanent pacemaker implantation (2% vs. 12.2%, p < 0.001). Unsurprisingly, TAVI has lower in‐hospital stay 3 (2 to 6) days vs. 10 (8 to 13) days, p < 0.001). Conclusions . For eligible aortic stenosis patients in the 7th decade of life, mini‐AVR remains an excellent therapeutic option.